googlemyass Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 5 new colors... and with that, I am done fully collecting TWDY. Been thinking about it for a while, and now is the perfect time. http://www.magicbulletrecords.com/site/twdy_louis_white/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theginwar Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixinflight Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Ouch. I'm glad I ended up getting a first press copy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjkenney Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 oh dammit. I finally settled and got the louis vitton cover one recently. that gold one is neato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
googlemyass Posted April 29, 2011 Author Share Posted April 29, 2011 Fortunately, I've come to realize how much of a pretentious douche Brent is in the last few months. I have been less and less encouraged to support him and his label. So that's it for me. Another fortunate thing, I will throw my whole collection thus far on eBay and make back what I've spent and then some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbulletrecords Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 You should cry about it more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 RIYL: DC Talk, Jars of Clay, and Relient K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbulletrecords Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 FFO: "Marlins Will Soar" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edgedestroys Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Wow, rad tool tone. Jesus Christ. I actually recently emailed asking for press info, not because you know, I'm a stupid ass and just want to put a number on an ebay auction but because I just like knowing as much as possible about my records. Cause you know, I appreciate them and shit? Oops. My b. That said, I should've held off on buying the 6th press last week, that aquamarine is hot shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicbulletrecords Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Real talk: we're way too busy on a daily basis right now to stay on top of "numbers" for "collectors" in any sort of timely manner. Last/least priority for the time being. All that crap will surface at some point. Just enjoy the music for now - that's seriously all we or the bands we work with care about, so hang in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenixinflight Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 As long as Shutter Release gets the vinyl treatment at some point, I'll be happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tylerrr Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 What is this on the 10th press now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rawkuout Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I've also emailed about pressing info and got a pretty sarcastic response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 ANYBODY WANT TO BUY SOME THIS WILL DESTROY YOU VARIANTS? PM me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dunnnope Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 a business entity just went on a rant on a coincidental group of people who choose to exercise their first amendment right but happen to use their song without permission and is openly discriminating against all of that group of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 a business entity just went on a rant on a coincidental group of people who choose to exercise their first amendment right but happen to use their song without permission and is openly discriminating against all of that group of people. Theft and misuse of copyrighted intellectual property is not covered under the First Amendment. Using music in any commercial context requires licensing fees, and in the case of music synchronized with video, first necessitates that the copyright holder give permission. I can see why Magic Bullet/TWDY would be angry when their music gets A) stolen by being used without permission, and used as background music for a message they're personally opposed to. It's up to them whether they want to voice any anti-Christian sentiment, that's their First Amendment right. I think it's kind of funny, and all these organizations have it coming when they don't do their homework on who's making and releasing the music they use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Also Brent can't hate all Christians, he reissued those Frodus CDs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Links to said videos? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dunnnope Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 a business entity just went on a rant on a coincidental group of people who choose to exercise their first amendment right but happen to use their song without permission and is openly discriminating against all of that group of people. Theft and misuse of copyrighted intellectual property is not covered under the First Amendment. Using music in any commercial context requires licensing fees, and in the case of music synchronized with video, first necessitates that the copyright holder give permission. I can see why Magic Bullet/TWDY would be angry when their music gets A) stolen by being used without permission, and used as background music for a message they're personally opposed to. It's up to them whether they want to voice any anti-Christian sentiment, that's their First Amendment right. I think it's kind of funny, and all these organizations have it coming when they don't do their homework on who's making and releasing the music they use. I guess I didn't make it clear that the first amendment right was being religious in the first place, and this guy choosing to alienate everyone who chooses to do so. Stealing the music is wrong, period. Generalizing that, because some groups of people did something, everyone who affiliates themselves with that group are wrong is just as bad. Being religious does not make people steal music without paying licensing fees and absolutely should not warrant a paragraph saying "hate us, because we hate you." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. No constitutional rights are being violated here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dunnnope Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. No constitutional rights are being violated here. Federal Civil Rights Act grants "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." His statement was made under his business entity, not a personal blog (which would be absolutely acceptable). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catalinacaper Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. No constitutional rights are being violated here. Federal Civil Rights Act grants "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." His statement was made under his business entity, not a personal blog (which would be absolutely acceptable). You seem to be missing the general point here which is that THEY AREN'T PAYING TO USE THE MUSIC. If they were, than you would be right to say he has no right to refuse its use. Churches are considered not-for-profit (laughable) businesses (who also don't have to pay taxes) but as such they are required like any other business or organization to pay for the use of songs on promotional material for said business "church" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerseydave77 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 If you don't care about collectors, why go through the trouble of pressing five different colors in a single new pressing? Let's be realistic as to why this multi-color trend has become so popular. Anyway, good record. There are some legal areas where Fair Use doctrine can be applied to the use of music, it is far more difficult to justify than film, video or photographs. Those videos don't fall into any of the instances I'm aware of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Still not seeing it. Brent's not denying anyone the right to buy or listen to the records he puts out, and he's well within his rights to not license it out to people he doesn't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjaicomo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't see what the constitution has to do with any of this. No constitutional rights are being violated here. Federal Civil Rights Act grants "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." His statement was made under his business entity, not a personal blog (which would be absolutely acceptable). Oh that's weird, I thought we were talking about constitutional rights. In any case, there is no denial here. I presume, if there were, you would think all Christian book stores are also violating that act? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.